Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling. You are all nuts and a little close minded! The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back. The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death? Not likely. They will also come back. These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet. That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on. Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals.

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.

EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.

Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.

I don't think so, somebody who lies about knowledge of his family running an offshore gambling rings and laundering millions of dollars through his personal bank account should not be re-elected. Especially after his wife and brothers and law have said that he knew about the whole thing an that he threw his family under the bus.

And second, somebody that uses and entire race of people's suffering for her own personal gain is really the lowest of the low.

I personally believe that voting for either of those people means that a person has lost their moral compass or never had one.

Edit: its also very possible that people just don't care about the morality and character of those representing them.

Clearly. See: Clinton, Bill.

Disagree with both of you about the alleged loss of a moral compass. Republicans got all up in arms about Warren. Democrats didn't seem to have much of a problem with the accusations brought against her. Is that because republicans are just coincidentally more moral in general?

Of course not. Republicans were running a hotly contested race against a challenger. People were inundated with attack ads daily in MA. It skews your opinion over time. To me, it seems like Elizabeth Warren did some ill-advised but trivial garbage. My biggest problem is her possible plagiarism of a recipe from a NYT piece.

Again, my biggest problem with a US Senator is that she might have potentially plagiarized a recipe from an old NYT piece. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

I think the campaigns on both sides did a great job ramping up the feelings from both sides and demonizing the opponents, and their supporters. There isn't a 'moral bankruptcy' problem in the US. There is a 'political radicalization' problem.

And then her and her husband blamed the plagiarism on a dead relative to cover their tracks. Classy folks over there.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling. You are all nuts and a little close minded! The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back. The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death? Not likely. They will also come back. These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet. That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on. Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

Long live the United States of America.

I believe the Republican Party is in trouble because of demographics.

They are losing the woman vote.They are losing the black vote.They are losing the Latin vote.They are losing the youth vote.They are losing the Asian vote.

Women make up 53% of the voters and Obama won 55% of that groupBlacks make up 13% of the electorate and Obama won 93% of that groupLatins make up 10% of the electorate and Obama won 71% of that group18-29 year olds make up 19% of the electorate and Obama won 60% of that groupAsians make up 3% of the electorate and Obama won 73% of that group

This is the second Presidential election where these numbers appear this way and by the next election, white voters are expected to drop 2-3 percentage points more.

Romney got 89% of his vote from white people.

The republican Party has to attract a more diverse core and the only way they will do that is by changing their platform to attract that diversity. If they don't do it. They will become an outdated party and die. And believe it or not political parties die in America. Just ask the Federalist, or Whig, or War Union, or Democratic Republican parties.

The Republican Party is at a cross roads. I don't think they have to, as angryguy put it "throw the religious right under the bus". They just need to redirect that section to tone down the religion and stress values and to soften their stances on social issues that alienate the groups they are not attracting. If it sends the religious right out of the party, that's their decision, but without a diversification of their base, the Republican Party will die within the next 20-24 years.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling. You are all nuts and a little close minded! The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back. The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death? Not likely. They will also come back. These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet. That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on. Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

Long live the United States of America.

I believe the Republican Party is in trouble because of demographics.

They are losing the woman vote.They are losing the black vote.They are losing the Latin vote.They are losing the youth vote.They are losing the Asian vote.

Women make up 53% of the voters and Obama won 55% of that groupBlacks make up 13% of the electorate and Obama won 93% of that groupLatins make up 10% of the electorate and Obama won 71% of that group18-29 year olds make up 19% of the electorate and Obama won 60% of that groupAsians make up 3% of the electorate and Obama won 73% of that group

This is the second Presidential election where these numbers appear this way and by the next election, white voters are expected to drop 2-3 percentage points more.

Romney got 89% of his vote from white people.

The republican Party has to attract a more diverse core and the only way they will do that is by changing their platform to attract that diversity. If they don't do it. They will become an outdated party and die. And believe it or not political parties die in America. Just ask the Federalist, or Whig, or War Union, or Democratic Republican parties.

The Republican Party is at a cross roads. I don't think they have to, as angryguy put it "throw the religious right under the bus". They just need to redirect that section to tone down the religion and stress values and to soften their stances on social issues that alienate the groups they are not attracting. If it sends the religious right out of the party, that's their decision, but without a diversification of their base, the Republican Party will die within the next 20-24 years.

Nick, TP and well said.

To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues? Where would these voters go? I cannot see them voting democrat. Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

Mitt is farther left than Reagan was, it seemed to work out well for him.

Mitt is nowhere, his position varied depending on who he was talking to. He was a socially moderate Republican in Massachusetts, a hard right-winger in the primaries, a caviar-eating fat cat in private donor dinners, and a super-centrist in the 2012 Presidential debates.

I find the idea that Mitt lost because he wasn't right-wing enough, to be hilarious. Mitt lost because people didn't buy what he was selling, if I may take a GOP ACA talking point and gleefully flip it around.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Doubt it. President Bush ran against two weaker candidates than Obama or Romney in both his elections, and he needed Ralph Nader just to win the first one. And by win the first one I mean "win" the first one.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Doubt it. President Bush ran against two weaker candidates than Obama or Romney in both his elections, and he needed Ralph Nader just to win the first one. And by win the first one I mean "win" the first one.

Running against the sitting vice president who's party just oversaw two terms of peace and prosperity is quite a bit harder than you make it out to be IMO.

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office. They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics. That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing. Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.